Ross Coulthart

[Giddierone]

I think the "too big to be moved" trope has clear Arthurian "sword in the stone" vibes.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

You know the craft is there, no doubt about it. Wanna see it?
Well, it's very heavy, and...hmmm... can't really put it in my truck, it's complicated.

 

[JMartJr]

I think the "too big to be moved" trope has clear Arthurian "sword in the stone" vibes.

The One True UFOlogist, the One prophesied to come and bring us Disclosure, will do a Yoda ""Size matters not" number and Force it up out of the ground, through the roof of the building and into the disclosed light of day!

 

[Gary C]

must ... not ... laugh

 

[FatPhil]

In the early days of rocketry, von Braun's V-2 was tested at White Sands. The story I've heard was that one errant failure landed just across the US border in nearby Juarez, where the locals stripped every junkyard of metal pieces to sell to tourists as "genuine rocket parts".

Is that how Jaime Maussan got his start?

 

[MonkeeSage]

He also said that it is a huge buried alien spacecraft, so I'd not put too much stock in anything he says. The point is that he's repeating baseless UFO lore for a new generation.

An interesting thing to me is many UFO believers will see this old clip and treat it as vindication of Coulthart, as if it's independent evidence rather than a potential mythical root of the current version.

 

[jon_eir]

Didn't Coulthart say it was not in the US

yes he has never gone any further despite being pushed on south Korean, Greenland and the five eyes.

Source: https://youtu.be/idBryc0eWww?t=8006

2:13:46

Ramsay: "Is it outside of the Five Eyes?"
Coulthart: "I've never said any location, and I've never said anything that would convey where it is."
Ramsay: "Fair."
Coulthart: "It's outside of the continental United States.

I thought I remember reading or hearing somewhere that there was more than one object out there that couldn't be moved. Or it was implied.

Steven Geer actually said it first. We dont know if their talking about the same huge ufo with a building over it of course . Geer and Rogan kicked off the South Korea thing. Its been the same circular reporting shtick since imo. heres a RPK complication of some of it.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUG5-GKJnfw&t=125s

I can not provide any thing other than a speculative link between Geer and Ross directly before claims were made in public, although its highly like Ross had contact with the witnesses Geer "supplied" to congress in 2023 or at least was privy to what was claimed by them before the huge ufo claims were in public.

@Todd Feinman full disclosure- I normally ignore really woowoo guys like geer and these claims so maybe dig a little digger on "more than one object claims"

 

[Todd Feinman]

@Todd Feinman full disclosure- I normally ignore really woowoo guys like geer and these claims so maybe dig a little digger on "more than one object claims

Agreed. I don't pay attention to to Greer either. I also get tired of being baited along. It gets tedious.

 

[jackfrostvc]

I have a recollection John Lear mentioned a giant UFO that couldnt be moved.

January 2018: John Lear.
"The Huge Flying Saucer Buried Near Garrison Utah
Many years ago there was a UFO conference here in Vegas and I went over to see a couple of friends. At the conference the Garrison Utah saucer crash was all the big rage.
There was report that I think was selling for about $30 which I bought and has disappeared from my library.
In 1953 a very large saucer crashed near Garrison Utah. It was about 150 to 200 feet in diameter. It was far too big for even the "Blue Berets" to move so it was decided to bury it on the spot."

Source:
Source: https://www.facebook.com/JohnOlsenLear/posts/pfbid02qfdjdTDTg9CMt1pjpnEaXxo7Q5Ti9WLTwhD1wMAta46NJjtUg688McXXAszyv3PZl

 

[owntheissue]

I have a recollection John Lear mentioned a giant UFO that couldnt be moved.

January 2018: John Lear.
"The Huge Flying Saucer Buried Near Garrison Utah
Many years ago there was a UFO conference here in Vegas and I went over to see a couple of friends. At the conference the Garrison Utah saucer crash was all the big rage.
There was report that I think was selling for about $30 which I bought and has disappeared from my library.
In 1953 a very large saucer crashed near Garrison Utah. It was about 150 to 200 feet in diameter. It was far too big for even the "Blue Berets" to move so it was decided to bury it on the spot."

Same old stories recycled over and over again - it is the MO.
Buried Treasure meets Dark Secret trope this time.

Story is almost certainly true though - note Lear got scammed for 30 bucks.

I love the idea of just burying an unknown 200 foot object they suspect was crafted by NHI's.
Just cross your fingers and hope it wasnt a bomb or a factory - or a bomb making factory?

 

[MapperGuy]

Same old stories recycled over and over again - it is the MO.
Buried Treasure meets Dark Secret trope this time.

Story is almost certainly true though - note Lear got scammed for 30 bucks.

I love the idea of just burying an unknown 200 foot object they suspect was crafted by NHI's.
Just cross your fingers and hope it wasnt a bomb or a factory - or a bomb making factory?

Bury it and just leave?

Does that sound likely? Come back later and dig it up for study (tools for doing so change over time)? Build a warehouse over it for study and dismantling? The aliens come back and retrieve it?

Stories like this are like lost treasure stories, the location is lost in the mists of time and recovery of the treasure is impossible.

But obviously somebody would know where it is, those who buried it for example. But they turn out to be incurious people with poor memories and can't quite seem to remember where it was. And of course nobody else ever tries looking for it, because it is surrounded by booby-traps and fierce beasts. Whose unusual presence is of course no hint there is something hidden there.

Such silly stories.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Same old stories recycled over and over again - it is the MO.
Buried Treasure meets Dark Secret trope this time.

Story is almost certainly true though - note Lear got scammed for 30 bucks.

I love the idea of just burying an unknown 200 foot object they suspect was crafted by NHI's.
Just cross your fingers and hope it wasnt a bomb or a factory - or a bomb making factory?

If it's so big it can't be moved; how long was it at the site in an exposed condition? Did it arrive recently? It would have attracted attention if it was at a site for a long period of time. Claims have been made that there are buildings or facilities built over some of them. Not enough evidence to suggest they exist.

 

[GM4AJK]

Stories like this are like lost treasure stories, the location is lost in the mists of time and recovery of the treasure is impossible.

Just as modern smartphones should have produced better photographic/video evidence of UFOs, the advent of GPS has pushed all "buried treasure" stories into a pre-GPS timeframe.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Just as modern smartphones should have produced better photographic/video evidence of UFOs, the advent of GPS has pushed all "buried treasure" stories into a pre-GPS timeframe.

Probably 98%+ would be planes, etc. And folks take pics of anything they think is strange. Anything you couldn't debunk, you'd put into the "waiting to be explained" basket. Which would make sense.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Here it is at 18:18 in

"Big. So big they've built a building over it in a country outside of the United States of America. I know that sounds preposterous and I know, oh my god you can just hear them now, the bleeding debunkers. Let's see this investigated. Let's just see what happens. Let's test these allegations before the Congress. It's very, very easy for people to go, "oh there's no evidence of...". My goodness, you know, there's a whole cardrobe of supposed experts on social media who are saying "it can't be therefore it isn't" and that's been the default for so many years. "It can't be therefore it isn't." Imagine if what Mr. Grusch is saying is true, think about the implications of that and imagine if it's up just intimated to you some of these objects are not capable of being moved because they're too bloody big!"



Source: https://youtu.be/ZUZUyck6KoU?si=uv_my1NOYXV5JkLt&t=1099

I'm going to come back to this transcript.
Note: I've corrected a word. He says bleating debunkers, not bleeding.

I'm also including some earlier material that sets up a point he's making. It seems to me that Coulthart is suggesting that there is physical evidence that is too big to hide. Physically too big to hide.

More important: It's also metaphorically big evidence. Massively impressive. His immediate objective is not establishing the truth of the claim. His immediate objective is getting Congress to investigate. To give them a motive. To move them off the dime. To do what they should have done decades ago....


Ross Coulthart: ...new Senate intelligence bill that um uh Kirsten Gallagher is pushing. It gives holders of non-earth origin or exotic UAP material six months to make it available to the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office.

Jay Anderson: Yeah but, Ross, doesn't that just give them six months, or more, to hide their shit?

RC: Okay. People are going to question what I'm about to say. What if some of that "shit" is so big it can't be moved?

JA: Is that what you're saying, Ross? Is that what you've been told?

RC: That's exactly what I'm saying.

JA: How big is big?

RC: Big. So big they built a building over it in a country outside of the United States of America. I know that sounds preposterous and I know... Oh my God, you can just hear them now, the bleating debunkers.

Let's see this investigated. Let's just see what happens. Let's test these allegations before the Congress. It's very, very easy for people to go, [mocking voice] "Oh there's no evidence. Oh my goodness me, let's just go away and ignore it."

Let's test it. We haven't even got there yet. Yet you know there's a whole cadre of supposed experts on social media who are saying, "It can't be, therefore it isn't." And that's been the default for so many years. It can't be, therefore it isn't.

Imagine if what Mr Grusch is saying is true. Think about the implications of that. And imagine if, as I've just intimated to you, some of these objects are not capable of being moved because they're too bloody big.

The thing that amuses me is that there is now, I have noticed, emerging on social media a plethora of Tweet Bots that I've never seen before, and they're running this constant line, this constant nagging line: "Oh, where's the evidence?"

And you know what? I don't give a F*** what they say, because what they say is irrelevant. Because if we can get those questions asked in Congress, this is the moment... You know, we actually have a unique moment in history... where these moments come possibly once every 50 or 60 years... The last one we had was, I think, sometime in the 1960s, and this is the next one. And we have an opportunity to actually get questions asked.


He seems to be saying that, even though there is no evidence that these large structures exist, it would be enormously important IF they did exist. Therefore people in Congress will sit up and take notice, at long last. Just because of the enormity of this (unsupported) possibility. He's looking to get these people motivated. And the way to do so is to really, really impress them... with something very, very impressive... if it were true.

It isn't primarily an evidentiary argument. It's mobilization rhetoric.

But there are wheels within wheels. Is he really trying to motivate Congress or is he trying to get more attention from UFO folk by giving them this hopeful scenario? A hopeful scenario that doesn't seem credible to me. Is he trying to get Congress to do what he wants, or trying to get more attention from his intended audience?



But along the way, as a bonus, he uses rhetorical tricks aimed at his audience, in a having-it-both-ways kind of way. Framing the argument as, "These things are real folks, and here's the evidence." Even though it's inconsistent with his later argument that presenting evidence just now is irrelevant, because, just now, we're concentrating on getting Congress motivated to search for evidence that these things are real.

Full disclosure: I had GPT write this list...
Argument from ignorance: Treating the absence of disproof as a reason to keep the allegation in play. Example: "Let's test these allegations... We haven't even got there yet," implying that because the claim has not been adequately investigated, dismissing it is unwarranted.

Appeal to possibility: Giving rhetorical weight to something merely because it could be true. Example: "What if some of that shit is so big it can't be moved?" and "Imagine if... some of these objects are not capable of being moved because they're too bloody big." A possibility is not evidence that the thing actually exists.

Straw man: Misrepresenting the opposing argument in an easier-to-attack form. Example: "It can't be, therefore it isn't." This portrays skeptics as rejecting the claim simply because it seems impossible, whereas a skeptic can instead be saying, "There isn't sufficient reliable evidence to establish that it exists."

Appeal to consequences: Emphasizing the extraordinary consequences of a proposition in a way that can make the proposition itself seem more credible. Example: "Imagine if what Mr. Grusch is saying is true. Think about the implications of that." The potentially enormous implications do not constitute evidence that Grusch's claims are true.

Poisoning the well: Undermining opposing viewpoints by disparaging their proponents rather than addressing their arguments. Examples include "the bleating debunkers" and "a whole cadre of supposed experts on social media." These descriptions encourage the audience to dismiss critics before considering their evidence or reasoning.

False dichotomy: Presenting two alternatives when additional possibilities exist. Example: Coulthart contrasts "there's no evidence... let's just go away and ignore it" with "let's test it." A third position is perfectly possible: "There isn't sufficient evidence to accept the claim, but the specific allegation may nevertheless warrant investigation."

Burden-of-proof shifting: Treating skeptics as though they must disprove the allegation rather than requiring the person making the extraordinary claim to substantiate it. Example: Coulthart repeatedly challenges people who ask "where's the evidence?" while emphasizing that the allegation should be investigated. Investigation can be warranted without evidence establishing the claim, but the burden of providing evidence for the claim remains with the person asserting it.

 

[Ann K]

Quote from supposed witnesses:

Bart was ten years old living in the town of Baker, Nevada which is approximately 8 miles from Garrison, Utah when he saw a strange sight. One night Bart claims to have seen a bright blue light streak across the sky and crash or land on the other side of the valley (near the DRES facility). When the light hit the ground, it caused the ground to shake, and the sky lit up. Bart said that he hid under his bed because it scared him badly.

Steve interviewed a man at a college in Utah who said that he was horseback riding with his brother and saw the same blue object crash into the desert somewhere in the Hamlin valley.

https://elyufocrash.com/2024/07/10/did-a-ufo-crash-in-western-utah-in-1953/

Any chance the origin of the story was merely an incoming meteorite, which would fit their descriptions? Given Coulthart's reputation for never meeting an apocryphal story he didn't like, the "buried" story might be nothing but embroidery of a genuine event.

 

[John J.]

[Quoting Coulthart] Let's see this investigated. Let's just see what happens. Let's test these allegations before the Congress.

I feel Ross Coulthart has unreasonable confidence on the ability of the US Congress to decide on points of fact.

It isn't primarily an evidentiary argument. It's mobilization rhetoric.

Agreed.

It seems that there is a push amongst movers and shakers on the UFO scene to get Congressional hearings/ official investigations/ articles about UFOs published in journals. When and if this happens, it is taken as evidence in itself that there is "something to it", irrespective of the quality/ testability of the evidence heard or the work published.

For instance, if the big built-over UFO claim were discussed in Congress or by a Congressional committee, I believe it would be presented as proof that it was a serious issue regardless of what was said or heard. There would be no need for information that actually led to the location of a UFO, or any other evidence that stood up to testing.
It seems (to me) to be more about winning the argument and influencing public perceptions than establishing facts. It is not about science.
Congress is not a forum for establishing points of science.

There is no testable evidence of a crashed UFO anywhere. Or that UFOs (as alien spacecraft) exist. It must be highly unlikely that a discussion in Congress, or the opinions of Congress members, will change that. If Ross Coulthart knows or suspects where a UFO is, he can tell us. He doesn't need to wait for an invitation to a Congressional hearing; evidence is not strengthened by the setting in which it is heard- though it might receive more publicity or mistakenly be seen as more compelling by some people. Maybe that is the aim.

 

[Giddierone]

Any chance the origin of the story was merely an incoming meteorite

Like the Hoba Meteorite? So large its never been moved... (I also just learned that Hoba means..."gift"...echos of contemporary talk of UAP "donations").

 

[jdog]

Quote from supposed witnesses:

Bart was ten years old living in the town of Baker, Nevada which is approximately 8 miles from Garrison, Utah when he saw a strange sight. One night Bart claims to have seen a bright blue light streak across the sky and crash or land on the other side of the valley (near the DRES facility). When the light hit the ground, it caused the ground to shake, and the sky lit up. Bart said that he hid under his bed because it scared him badly.

Steve interviewed a man at a college in Utah who said that he was horseback riding with his brother and saw the same blue object crash into the desert somewhere in the Hamlin valley.

https://elyufocrash.com/2024/07/10/did-a-ufo-crash-in-western-utah-in-1953/

Any chance the origin of the story was merely an incoming meteorite, which would fit their descriptions? Given Coulthart's reputation for never meeting an apocryphal story he didn't like, the "buried" story might be nothing but embroidery of a genuine event.

So the agricultural Desert Range Experimental Station -- established in 1933 -- was cover for investigating the crash of a UFO on the station's real estate in 1953?

 

[jon_eir]

I spent about 15 minutes following @Ann K post and found the author's follow-up:

https://elyufocrash.com/2026/02/19/investigating-the-garrison-ufo-crash-recent-updates/

As far as I can tell, the first investigation of this specific case starts around 1993 with Steve Jones/Phoenix Project, with Phoenix Project material already circulating on ParaNet in 1992. (I could not find the 1993 article and im not posting the Paranet archive as it not secure.) The 1953 dating is surprisingly weak. Bart Wright's childhood sighting was largely dated from his recollection of being around 9/10 years old: it was later established as below

During the audio clip, the man states that the witness woke up in the middle of the night by a loud explosion. When he looked out of the window, he saw a blue glowing object crash / land on the other side of a mountain. They don't know for sure which mountain or which direction the witness saw this. Everyone assumes it was where the desert triangle is, and it could be, but there's no definite answer.

The May 1953 association may also be contaminated by the May 20 Kingman crash story, which later gets linked to Garrison. More importantly, the supposed Garrison crash/excavation feature is now visible in 1949 aerial photography, so it cannot establish a 1953 crash date. A plausible explanation- A year either way matters because there was a genuine USAF C-47D crash on December 10, 1952 in the wider region. The historical account states:

"On December 10, 1952, a C-47D with the tail number 44-76447 crashed on a mountain range in Nevada during windy, icy weather."

https://thekwe.org/topics/airplane_crashes/c47_nevada_19521210/p_c47_nevada.htm?.com

The second witness story becomes less reliable and important context was withheld from original reports

"The horseback riders saw orbs in the valley after the UFO crashed in 1953. It's reported in an interview with Richard Doty."

" Steve had told me that story at least 3-4 times in the past and he had never said anything about that being reported after the crash, Richard Doty, or that he didn't talk to those witnesses himself."

Then there's the LMH/Lear contamination. The author says people connected with the earlier investigation disputed Linda Moulton Howe's later telling:

"I know from talking to multiple people that she completely lied about or made up a lot of this story when she talked about it."

The earlier article specifically says LMH added the story of the huge UFO being buried by hand by a large group of soldiers. That looks remarkably similar to Lear's later version: a 150–200-foot UFO too large to move, buried by soldiers and supposedly still there today.



So, to keep this on topic get thread back on track maybe from

Todd Feinman said:
I thought I remember reading or hearing somewhere that there was more than one object out there that couldn't be moved. Or it was implied.

1. @jackfrostvc post : confirmed John Lear gigantic UFO story- still buried there today, likely contaminated through the LMH/ParaNet/Doty/Lear information loop. Not the Ross Coultard story because not outside the US. Not what post was trying to establish.
2. @Ann K post : the earlier story of a large UFO being dug up and removed. Given the poor dating, late 1952 C-47 crash and recovery is at least plausible imo.
3. Another example of yellow journalism/circular reporting and witness contamination within the UFO community gradually joined separate events together, with later retellings then mistaken for independent corroboration.

 

[Mendel]

Probably 98%+ would be planes, etc. And folks take pics of anything they think is strange. Anything you couldn't debunk, you'd put into the "waiting to be explained" basket. Which would make sense.

I know of at least two missing pre-war aircraft, where some people supposedly have clues to their whereabouts, but can't act on them without the help of moneyed benefactors. Like the Maussan mummy stories, the evidence is twice removed from the investors (i.e. the person providing the "evidence" isn't the one soliciting money), and the place is a secret.
Until they actually find hard evidence, I'll believe these are cons.

 

[Ann K]

It seems that there is a push amongst movers and shakers on the UFO scene to get Congressional hearings/ official investigations/ articles about UFOs published in journals.

Added "bonus" (detriment) to that is they will undoubtedly be quoted by AI sources, forever or until AI crashes and burns.